Judge Sets Aside Airline's Pension Fund

[piasabird]

I was driving home from work and what do I hear?

Some judge is telling United they do not have to honor the employee's pension fund. These poor suckers can kiss their pension and their retirement goodbye to keep their company from bankruptcy.

Is it really worth it to keep the airline from bankruptcy to kiss everyone's pension goodbye? I guess in reality, there is nothing anyone can do. I think the Government should just force them to liquidate and make good on everyone's pension. You can get a new job but it is hard to replace your pension.

I guess the moral of this story is never let your company control your retirement fund!

 

[conjur]

Good thing they got in before the new bankruptcy law went into effect. Oh wait, corporations are still protected.


BTW, how is this going to help the Propagandist sell his Social Security privatization plan?



Oh, here's a link to the story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/united_airlines

 

[EatSpam]

Great news! Now they can get George W. Bush's jobs of the future!!! Those that haven't been taken by illegal aliens, that is.

 

[SuperTool]

One more reason we need Social Security now more than ever.

 

[Jadow]

this pisses me off.

This is just the start, now every airline, car company, just about every major industrial company who is barely making it is going to go down this route. How much is the american taxpayer going to have to bend over?

these stupid companies made these deals with the unions, and they should go down for it. The best thing to do is just purge all these major industrial companies and their unions and start over. One of the reasons we're losing most production overseas is because the cost of labor is just too high. $1500 of every gm car cost goes towards the health care of retired GM workers! that is just insane.

 

[Jadow]

these pensions = no ownership
401k's = ownership

there's a parallel with social security. System stays as is, eventually the same thing happens with social security in 35 years. We get personal accounts, people begin to get OWNERSHIP, and control their own destiny.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
One more reason we need Social Security now more than ever.

and national health insurance.

 

[glenn1]

Well, this pretty much blows ERISA out of the water. Although I can't say I envy the judge for having to make a decision on this matter. Basically he could have either Chapter 7'ed UAL or discharged the pension liabilities leaving Uncle Sam on the hook to pick up the pieces. Put tens of thousands out of work, or give life support to a company and industry that's sucked billions of economic value out of the system and still doesn't have a viable business plan.

BTW, I bet that General Motors, Ford Motors, and a bunch of other companies with huge retirement liabilities to seek to fast track similar cases onto the docket shortly. Might even make GM debt (now in "junk" or high-yield status) be a reasonable bet at 50-60 cents on the dollar.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Jadow
these pensions = no ownership
401k's = ownership

there's a parallel with social security. System stays as is, eventually the same thing happens with social security in 35 years. We get personal accounts, people begin to get OWNERSHIP, and control their own destiny.

Hahaha. You read too much rightwing tripe. Ownership of some stock does not give you control over your destiny. Tomorrow, that stock can tank and you have no control over that. I am all for risk taking, but with a safety net. Social Security is that safety net.

 

[Jadow]

where has ANYONE other than scaremongers who are against personal accounts, ever mentioned that you could own "one stock" under ANY proposal for SS? The RISKIEST investment allowed would be an S&P Index fund, which is made up of the 500 largest companies in the country.

And most options would call for a mix of stock and bond index funds. So take your fraudulent "one stock" arguement that I've heard a hundred times and shove it.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I was driving home from work and what do I hear?

Some judge is telling United they do not have to honor the employee's pension fund. These poor suckers can kiss their pension and their retirement goodbye to keep their company from bankruptcy.

Is it really worth it to keep the airline from bankruptcy to kiss everyone's pension goodbye? I guess in reality, there is nothing anyone can do. I think the Government should just force them to liquidate and make good on everyone's pension. You can get a new job but it is hard to replace your pension.

I guess the moral of this story is never let your company control your retirement fund!

"Judge Eugene Wedoff said the settlement, while disputed, does not violate any law or United's collective bargaining agreement and he noted that employees at companies such as United could end up with fewer or even no benefits if no arrangement is made and the company goes broke"

 

[Jadow]

"Judge Eugene Wedoff said the settlement, while disputed, does not violate any law or United's collective bargaining agreement and he noted that employees at companies such as United could end up with fewer or even no benefits if no arrangement is made and the company goes broke"

Yeah, and who was there to represent the US Taxpayer?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Jadow
where has ANYONE other than scaremongers who are against personal accounts, ever mentioned that you could own "one stock" under ANY proposal for SS? The RISKIEST investment allowed would be an S&P Index fund, which is made up of the 500 largest companies in the country.

And most options would call for a mix of stock and bond index funds. So take your fraudulent "one stock" arguement that I've heard a hundred times and shove it.

Stock markets go up and down just like stocks do. It's not a fraudulent arguement by any means. You could have a bear market that will reduce everyone's retirement savings.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Jadow
where has ANYONE other than scaremongers who are against personal accounts, ever mentioned that you could own "one stock" under ANY proposal for SS? The RISKIEST investment allowed would be an S&P Index fund, which is made up of the 500 largest companies in the country.

And most options would call for a mix of stock and bond index funds. So take your fraudulent "one stock" arguement that I've heard a hundred times and shove it.

Stock markets go up and down just like stocks do. It's not a fraudulent arguement by any means. You could have a bear market that will reduce everyone's retirement savings.

And aren't GM and United two of the largest 500 companies?

 

[Ozoned]

The PBGC, the government's pension insurer.

 

[glenn1]

Stock markets go up and down just like stocks do. It's not a fraudulent arguement by any means. You could have a bear market that will reduce everyone's retirement savings.

It depends on what your timeframe is. In the short term you are of course correct. Over the longer term, "safer" investments are actually worse than stocks because of lost opportunity cost and the fact that these asset classes sometimes don't even keep pace with inflation. As with all matters financial, you can't give a cookie cutter answer that applies to everyone.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

And aren't GM and United two of the largest 500 companies?

Ah yes, more people than Enron about to be reamed

Keep voting Republican :thumbsup:

 

[nageov3t]

whew. that f'ing sucks

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Jadow
these pensions = no ownership
401k's = ownership

there's a parallel with social security. System stays as is, eventually the same thing happens with social security in 35 years. We get personal accounts, people begin to get OWNERSHIP, and control their own destiny.

Hahaha. You read too much rightwing tripe. Ownership of some stock does not give you control over your destiny. Tomorrow, that stock can tank and you have no control over that. I am all for risk taking, but with a safety net. Social Security is that safety net.

Just like tomorrow the US govt can cease to exist. It is a risk.

As for UAL, let her die already. Letting taxpayers pickup the bill is ridiculous.

 

[daclayman]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Jadow
these pensions = no ownership
401k's = ownership

there's a parallel with social security. System stays as is, eventually the same thing happens with social security in 35 years. We get personal accounts, people begin to get OWNERSHIP, and control their own destiny.

Hahaha. You read too much rightwing tripe. Ownership of some stock does not give you control over your destiny. Tomorrow, that stock can tank and you have no control over that. I am all for risk taking, but with a safety net. Social Security is that safety net.

Just like tomorrow the US govt can cease to exist. It is a risk.

As for UAL, let her die already. Letting taxpayers pickup the bill is ridiculous.

Then we should have let Chrysler die. Remember 1981?!? Chrysler asked the Reagan adminstration for a $1.2 billion loan. Chrysler got 'da free money' and bought a bunch of Mitsus and called um K cars and laid off as many American workers as was required.
Screw you repub hack.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. Sucks to be a United employee- but pretty much par for the course when the company runs the pension fund. Huge executive salaries, perks, and bonuses, even as the company sinks below the surface. Looting all around, and then, so long, suckers! That goes for the shareholders, too, of course...

Independently administered pension plans are the only answer- the company and the employees both contribute, the assets are managed by an outside party, whose only interest is to grow the fund, make a small% as administrative fees... add govt controlled SS... add independent investment by future retirees, and you have a balanced and secure retirement vehicle...

 

[Ferocious]

Again the hard working American worker has to suffer from poor decisions and poor management of his superiors over the years.

:disgust:

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: daclayman

Then we should have let Chrysler die. Remember 1981?!? Chrysler asked the Reagan adminstration for a $1.2 billion loan. Chrysler got 'da free money' and bought a bunch of Mitsus and called um K cars and laid off as many American workers as was required.
Screw you repub hack.

Actually, Chrysler got a loan guarantee for a $1.2B loan. The loan was from one or more banks. The US government just said they would cover it if Chrysler defaulted, but they didn't so it didn't cost the taxpayer much of anything. In fact, in the post K-car period and up to just prior to the Diamler purchase, Chrysler was doing quite well from a financial standpoint.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Jadow
these pensions = no ownership
401k's = ownership

there's a parallel with social security. System stays as is, eventually the same thing happens with social security in 35 years. We get personal accounts, people begin to get OWNERSHIP, and control their own destiny.

Hahaha. You read too much rightwing tripe. Ownership of some stock does not give you control over your destiny. Tomorrow, that stock can tank and you have no control over that. I am all for risk taking, but with a safety net. Social Security is that safety net.

Just like tomorrow the US govt can cease to exist. It is a risk.

As for UAL, let her die already. Letting taxpayers pickup the bill is ridiculous.

Are you comparing the likelyhood of a stock market decline or a stock tanking to that of US government ceasing to exist? I'll take my chances with the US government being around.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Jadow
Yeah, and who was there to represent the US Taxpayer?

Either she Chapter 7's the company and all the employees are fired and the assets liquidated to the highest bidder and the pension is voided or;

She Chapter 13's the company, the pension liability is removed and everyone keeps their jobs.

Either way Joe Taxpayer is stuck bailing out the pension and in the first scenario all those employees are fired and end up on unemployment and or public assistance. Tell me, which is the worse choice?